Vegetarian's guide to talking to carnivores

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by James R, Aug 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    For those who support the equality between animals and humans,
    please specify the age you consider adulthood at different animals so that they can vote and may be sentenced under the civil code?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Emil:

    I haven't seen anybody in this thread supporting total equality between animals and humans. Though, you also need to read back to where I explained the two senses of the word "equality".
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    adoucette:

    No, I can't see the inate moral difference between the interest of a cow in living and the interest of a human in living.

    And apparently you can't explain it to me.

    So, I guess that's it for you in this thread.

    Next!


    Anti-Flag:

    Haven't I made myself clear about what bothers me? Go back and read the thread if you haven't understood. I see no reason to repeat myself yet again just because you're too lazy to follow my argument.

    My argument is based on equal consideration for equal interests. Where interests differ, equal consideration does not apply. There is nothing arbitrary about this.

    Rather than you inventing straw-man positions for me, let's hear what you think for a change.

    Which animals do you, Anti-Flag, think it is ok to kill? And why? In particular, please explain to me why it is ok to kill a cow or a chicken and eat it. Then we'll see if I have any objection.

    Is that your reasoning as to why it's ok to kill and eat cattle? That they aren't humans?

    If so, then you're on the same speciesist track as Bells.

    Got anything else?

    The number of meat eaters is increasing. There was even a report linked earlier in the thread that shows that.

    No need to lie. I know you never even started to consider not eating meat.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    SAM:

    Yes. That's what all moral discussions about. Specifically, people who act immorally are deficient ... in terms of moral rectitude.

    Take a simple example: most people agree that stealing is morally wrong (in most instances). Therefore, it follows that people who choose to steal stuff are morally objectionable, or "deficient" if you want to use that term.

    All morality involves drawing lines, too, SAM. It's generally not ok to steal a loaf of bread, but it may well be morally justifiable to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family. Do you consider that line to be similarly based on "subjectively attached morals and values" etc.?

    No. Meat eaters are arguing the morality of humans vs everything else and defining ONLY humans based on assumed inate superiority. At least, most of the ones in this thread are.

    It is generally considered morally acceptable to kill in self defence if necessary.

    Coming back to the current thread, I might point out that cows and sheep aren't threatening human life.

    If your point is that laws against animal cruelty and abuse are largely inadequate, then I agree with you.

    There may be good reasons for burying our dead to do with health. I'm not sure. I also think that many human beings would have religious objections.

    In the US alone, about 7 billion[/i] chickens are killed and eaten by humans each year. How many humans are killed by chickens each year, do you think?

    I don't think that the animals-killing-humans-and-eating-them problem is quite as pressing as the humans-killing-animals one, SAM.

    No. I don't think that carnivorous predators that might prey on human beings should be let loose in human habitats.
     
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No James, that's not the issue.

    The interests of the cow don't equal the interests of humans.

    Which is why no country equates killing of Cows with Murder.

    And while The "Next!" in that reply makes it appear like you think you won the argument James, Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Arthur
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    adoucette:

    If a cow could talk, what do you think it would say if you asked it "Would you rather be killed and eaten now, or allowed to go on living your life for the next 13 years?" And how would a human answer the same question?

    Now, explain to me how the interests of the cow and the human are not equal in this regard.
     
  10. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    I am a proud man and I do not admit to being falsely accused and I feel obliged to defend myself.

    Yes I am omnivore (not carnivore). My physiology does not allow me to be a herbivore. Most fibers I can not digest. I need protein.
    Nature made me in that way.
    I do not kill for pleasure. I kill in the same way as omnivorous or carnivorous animals kills to survive. Both you and I will be food for bacteria in the end. All living organisms will be food for bacteria. Nothing is lost and nothing is gained, all changes from one state to another.There is nothing moral or immoral, so is the nature.

    And believers are trying to impose the sense of guilt because I am human.
    Now that was missing, as someone who try to impose guilt because I eat meat and I follow my nature.

    If your metabolism allows it very well, but I advise you to talk to your doctor because your body is not a herbivore.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Emil:

    So, unlike most meat eaters, you are unable to survive on a vegetarian diet. That makes you a special case, it seems.
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    So now you presume to know what cows think?

    Pretty funny James.

    Personally I don't think they think about life and death and so the logical answer is they wouldn't care one way or the other.

    Arthur
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Somehow I'm reminded of something I heard studying geology.

    Rocks do not suffer deformation, they enjoy it.
     
  14. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    We aren't food for bacteria... We are oil for people's cars millions of years in the future.
     
  15. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    So we Americans are doing it right.

    Kinky....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Puts a whole new spin on the term "getting your rocks off..."
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,811
    No, it's not. Google it. An appeal to nature is an argument requiring an understanding of nature to maintain the argument. "We need to eat to survive" is an appeal to nature, yet says nothing about morality.

    Yes. Meat is one moral alternative. Carrots are another. Both require you to kill a living being. You like cows more than carrots, and think carrots should be killed instead; that's fine. That's a personal moral judgment you have made. Others make different judgments. That's OK also.

    Uh, yes. Not only did you imply it, you actually replaced the word "black" with "cow" in an argument on rights. There is no clearer way you could have phrased it to demonstrate that you consider that cows and blacks should be treated similarly - you tried to show even the words are interchangeable.

    Exactly! As is your argument that cows are like people. It's your personal prejudice for cows and against carrots. And again, you can have that prejudice if you like; many have similar ones, and that's a harmless prejudice for sure. You just look a bit hypocritical when you condemn someone else for having a prejudice similar to yours, just targeted at different foods.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Then according to your principle of equal consideration, how do justify your ill treatment of vegetable and fruit trees?

    So is it moral to eat a fruit if you don't fulfill the bargain made with the tree?
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Yeah, I agree, arguing opinion with opinion rather than based on evidence is a hollow way of putting your point acrosss

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I'm 100% primitivist as long as you ignore all the mod cons and techno stuff I swear by

    PS why did you ban yourself? Now how am I going to discuss Keith's politics with you?
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    billvon:

    I Googled it, just for you. From the first result I get this:

    From the third result, I get this:

    You obviously haven't understood my arugment in this thread. I suggest you go back to the start and read the whole thread from the beginning, paying particular attention to my posts.

    This has nothing to do with liking cows more than carrots. Nor is living a sufficient criterion to raise the moral question of whether killing is acceptable or not.

    But that's my argument.

    What's your argument that shows that "meat is one moral alternative"? You haven't given it yet, as far as I can see. So, let's hear it.

    Yes, I think cows and black people should be treated exactly the same when it comes to arbitrarily killing and eating them for your own pleasure. In other words, in case you're not clear on this, I think that neither black people nor cows should be arbitrarily killed and eaten for your pleasure.

    What do you think? That both should be killed? Or one but not the other? If you kill the cow but not the black person, then on what basis are you distinguishing between them in making this particular decision? You haven't said, so far.

    Not at all. There are objective and morally significant differences between cows and carrots, which I already pointed out earlier in the thread. Get back to me once you've read my previous posts. Obviously you just jumped in half way without understanding or knowing my arguments.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    adoucette:

    So now you presume to know what cows think?

    See how your own argument works against you here? You'll need to try harder than that.

    Actually, it's a bad argument, so I'll forgive you and pretend you didn't make it.

    I have some experience of observing cattle, and I don't mean on TV. From your posts, its sounds like you do not. I can tell you that cattle experience pain, because they react to it in much the same way that human beings do. I can tell you that cows try to avoid pain and suffering, just like you do. I can tell you they fear death. I could tell you at length about how cows react to seeing other cows shot.

    So, do I presume to know what cows think? No. I know what cows think about being killed, if given any warning. Their behaviour clearly leads anybody with half a brain to the obvious conclusion. You, with a complete brain presumably should be able to do at least as well.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    SAM:

    Firstly, I don't necessarily agree with you that my treatment of vegetable and fruit trees is bad. Secondly, an apple tree is not self-aware and sentient like a cow is. As I have said previously, equal consideration does not apply where there is some morally significant feature that creates a difference between the objects or persons under consideration. Equal consideration merely says we should treat like as like. Where we have unlike and unlike, then differential treatment may be morally justifiable, though not automatically. Equal consideration is a starting point, not an end point.

    Now let's take a look at your quote (source?):

    Apples don't actually "want" anything, because apples are not conscious or self-aware. Neither are apple trees. Or, if you really want to push the argument, it is possible that apple trees have some more-or-less automatic responses that indicate certain reactions to external stimuli, but if this is to be called self-awareness then it is of a much reduced kind in comparison to the self-awareness of something like a human being or a cow.

    At another level, you might argue that apple-tree genes "want" to propagate themselves, but this is just a short-hand way of picturing an evolutionary process. Genes are not moral agents. They are as self-aware as a recipe for sponge cake. The best book-length discussion of these matters can be found in Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, in which he explains the exact sene in which a non-self-aware gene can be said to be "selfish".

    Again, the tree didn't have anything in mind, because it doesn't have a mind to start with.

    It is a good evolutionary strategy for an apple tree to grow tasty fruit that animals will want to eat, thus unknowingly carrying the seeds to new locations, but there's no thought or plan involved. And no tree will ever be upset if its seeds don't get to propagate.

    The tree itself isn't offering anything. It is not a moral agent. It is not conscious. It has no plan. It is not bargaining.

    This particular evolutionary strategy either works, in which case trees reproduce, or it doesn't, in which case that species of tree goes extinct. There's no "deal" involved. Even from the tree's gene point of view, the action of producing fruit is not altruistic or part of a contract with human beings (or anything else). It is a purely gene-selfish act. And even that is just shorthand for saying that it is just a good evolutionary strategy under certain circumstances. And even the word "strategy" can be misleading in these context, because nothing is consciously strategising.

    So....

    Nobody bargains with a tree, so you're asking a meaningless question.

    I hope this is clear.
     
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No James, you are the only one who claims to know how cow's think.
    I don't think they are aware of their own mortality.

    And avoidance of pain and loud noises doesn't signify that they do.

    You on the other hand are completely gone.

    LOL

    Arthur
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    aduocette:

    LOL all you like. Is that the best you can do?

    Why don't you explain to me why it is ok to kills cattle and eat them? That's if you can come up with an ethical reason.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page